Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive training in Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Leung IH, Walton CC, Hallock H, Lewis SJ, Valenzuela M, Lampit A.. Neurology, 2015-10-30
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective To quantify the effects of cognitive training (CT) on cognitive and behavioral outcome measures in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Methods We systematically searched 5 databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CT in patients with PD reporting cognitive or behavioral outcomes. Efficacy was measured as standardized mean difference (Hedges g) of post-training change. Results Seven studies encompassing 272 patients with Hoehn & Yahr Stages 1-3 were included. The overall effect of CT over and above control conditions was small but statistically significant (7 studies: g = 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.014-0.44, p = 0.037). True heterogeneity across studies was low (I(2) = 0%) and there was no evidence of publication bias. Larger effect sizes were noted on working memory (4 studies: g = 0.74, CI 0.32-1.17, p = 0.001), processing speed (4 studies: g = 0.31, CI 0.01-0.61, p = 0.04), and executive function (5 studies: g = 0.30, CI 0.01-0.58, p = 0.042), while effects on measures of global cognition (4 studies), memory (5 studies), visuospatial skills (4 studies), and depression (5 studies), as well as attention, quality of life, and instrumental activities of daily living (3 studies each), were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions Though still small, the current body of RCT evidence indicates that CT is safe and modestly effective on cognition in patients with mild to moderate PD. Larger RCTs are necessary to examine the utility of CT for secondary prevention of cognitive decline in this population.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Leung, I. H., Walton, C. C., Hallock, H., Lewis, S. J., Valenzuela, M., & Lampit, A. (2015). Cognitive training in Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000002145
Vancouver
Leung IH, Walton CC, Hallock H, Lewis SJ, Valenzuela M, Lampit A. Cognitive training in Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2015. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000002145. PMID: 26519540.
BibTeX
@article{leung2015-26519540,
author = {Leung, I. H. and Walton, C. C. and Hallock, H. and Lewis, S. J. and Valenzuela, M. and Lampit, A.},
title = {{Cognitive training in Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000002145},
pmid = {26519540},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000002145}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Seven studies encompassing 272 patients with Hoehn & Yahr Stages 1-3 were included.
- The overall effect of CT over and above control conditions was small but statistically significant (7 studies: g = 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.014-0.44, p = 0.037).
- Larger effect sizes were noted on working memory (4 studies: g = 0.74, CI 0.32-1.17, p = 0.001), processing speed (4 studies: g = 0.31, CI 0.01-0.61, p = 0.04), and executive function (5 studies: g = 0.30, CI 0.01-0.58, p = 0.042), while effects on measures of global cognition (4 studies), memory (5 studies), visuospatial skills (4 studies), and depression (5 studies), as well as attention, quality of life, and instrumental activities of daily living (3 studies each), were not statistically significant.
- Conclusions Though still small, the current body of RCT evidence indicates that CT is safe and modestly effective on cognition in patients with mild to moderate PD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants272
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 272 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26519540) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “bodies”
1,017 studies in the library carry the topic tag “bodies”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,017 tagged studies.